RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
         AIR FORCE BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

IN THE MATTER OF:      DOCKET NUMBER:  99-02960
            INDEX CODE:  131.09, 107.00

            COUNSEL:  NONE

            HEARING DESIRED:  YES


_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT REQUESTS THAT:

He be advanced to the grade of senior master sergeant (E-8)  for  retirement
and  awarded  the  Meritorious  Service  Medal  (MSM)  and  an   Air   Force
Commendation Medal (AFCM).
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT CONTENDS THAT:

Unfair advancement of  an  “underqualified”  Guard  member  denied  him  the
opportunity for timely advancement.

In support of his request,  applicant  submits  a  personal  statement  with
additional documents associated with the issues cited  in  his  contentions.
These documents are appended at Exhibit A. (Exhibit A).
_________________________________________________________________

STATEMENT OF FACTS:

Information extracted from  applicant’s  appeal  package  and  his  military
personnel records reveals that he had prior active duty service (18  Sep  67
- 17 Sep 71).   After  completing  his  four-year  tour,  he  was  honorably
released from active duty in the grade of sergeant (E-4) and transferred  to
the Air Force Reserve.  During the period 26 Jul 73 through 24 Oct  78,  the
applicant had a break in service.  On 25 Oct 78,  he  enlisted  in  the  Air
Force Reserve.  On 18 Sep 80, he enlisted in the Alaska Air  National  Guard
(AK ANG) and was progressively promoted to the grade of master sergeant  (E-
7), ANG and Reserve of the Air Force, with an  effective  date  of  rank  of
1 Aug 89.  On 1 Apr 96, the applicant retired from the AK ANG in  the  grade
of E-7 and was assigned to the Retired Reserve Section  and  placed  on  the
USAF Reserve Retired  List  awaiting  pay,  effective  3  Apr  96.   He  had
completed a total of 21 years, 5 months and 8 days of  satisfactory  Federal
service at the time of his retirement.

On 18 Jan 01, the applicant requested that  his  application  be  withdrawn.
By letter, dated 26 Feb 01, the  applicant  requested  that  his  appeal  be
reopened for consideration by the Board.
_________________________________________________________________

AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The Personnel Operations  Branch,  ANG/DPFOC,  recommended  the  applicant’s
request be denied.  DPFOC stated that while the  applicant’s  discrimination
complaint was dismissed as untimely,  it  is  important  to  note  that  the
information provided reveals no wrongdoing on the part  of  the  Alaska  Air
National Guard (AK ANG) with respect to the accession and  training  of  the
sergeant mentioned by the applicant in the case file.

DPFOC indicated that at the time of the  alleged  discriminatory  acts,  the
aforementioned sergeant’s accession as a technical sergeant (E-6)  into  the
AK ANG was appropriate and proper in accordance with the policy in place  at
that time.  Additionally, the sergeant’s attainment of  his  5  and  7-skill
levels, while rapid, were within standards and procedures prescribed at  the
time.  Therefore, the applicant’s contention that he  was  denied  promotion
opportunity due to the sergeant’s progression is without merit.  As  to  the
Meritorious Service  Medal  (MSM)  and  the  Air  Force  Commendation  Medal
(AFCM), recognition of this nature is not an  inherent  right.   It  is  the
commander’s discretion to recommend  an  individual  for  a  decoration.   A
complete copy of this evaluation, with TAG AK/ESSO’s response of 16 Oct  00,
is appended at Exhibit C.
_________________________________________________________________

APPLICANT'S REVIEW OF AIR FORCE EVALUATION:

The applicant stated that if things had been fair, he would  have  made  the
grade of E-8 for retirement.  But most importantly, he would  have  received
timely and fair promotions to E-6, leading to  possible  timely  advancement
to E-7, leading to a possibility for  E-8  advancement  with  all  necessary
qualifications for those advancements completed.  The  award  for  the  AFCM
was for one that his commander stated he was  entitled  to,  which  was  for
“Outstanding Achievement.”  The AFCM he received was of generic nature -  he
is not looking for another AFCM.  He was told that he would be receiving  an
MSM at retirement by the Personnel Superintendent.  A complete copy of  this
response is appended at Exhibit E.

He acquired an extract from the Air Force regulation, formerly  called  125-
26, entitled “The Enlisted  Promotion  Requirements  for  the  Air  National
Guard,” which identifies the  criteria  that  must  be  satisfied  for  each
member in the Air Force/Air National Guard.  He applied himself in  face  of
adversity and did as well as he could with the leadership  he  had.   He  is
unhappy with the way he and  others  were  treated  by  the  acts  performed
(Exhibit E).
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD CONCLUDES THAT:

1.  The applicant has exhausted all remedies provided  by  existing  law  or
regulations.

2.  The application was not timely filed; however, it is in the interest  of
justice to excuse the failure to timely file.

3.  Insufficient relevant evidence has been  presented  to  demonstrate  the
existence of probable error or injustice.  After a thorough  review  of  the
evidence of record and applicant’s complete submission, we  are  unpersuaded
that  he  was  denied  promotion  opportunity  due   to   another   member’s
progression or that he was unfairly denied the  requested  awards.   All  of
his contentions are duly noted; however, we do not  find  these  assertions,
in and by themselves, sufficiently  persuasive  to  favorably  consider  the
applicant’s  requests.    Other   than   the   applicant’s   unsubstantiated
allegations,  no  evidence  has  been  presented  to  indicate   there   was
discrimination against the applicant or  that  his  superiors  abused  their
discretionary authority when they selected another individual  to  fill  the
vacant E-6 position.  The circumstances surrounding  the  E-6  position  are
unknown; therefore, we do not believe it would be appropriate, based on  the
applicant’s submission, to make an  assumption  that  appropriate  personnel
actions  were  not  attained  when  we  are  unaware  of  all   the   facts.
Furthermore, we note that the applicant’s allegations, reviewed  many  times
at various levels,  were  unsubstantiated.   As  to  the  requested  awards,
evidence has not been  presented  which  shows  that  Air  Force  policy  or
instructions  were  violated  by  not  awarding  the  applicant   retirement
recognition of the MSM or that the AFCM he was awarded  was  in  error.   No
documentary evidence has been presented to substantiate that  the  applicant
was recommended for the MSM and that such  a  recommendation  was  approved.
In our opinion, the applicant has failed  to  substantiate  his  contentions
that he was unjustly treated.  In view of the above and having no reason  to
question the integrity of his superiors, we conclude that  no  basis  exists
to recommend favorable action on the applicant’s appeal.

4.  The applicant's case is adequately documented and it has not been  shown
that a personal appearance with or without counsel will  materially  add  to
our understanding of the issue(s) involved.  Therefore, the  request  for  a
hearing is not favorably considered.
_________________________________________________________________

THE BOARD DETERMINES THAT:




The applicant be notified that the evidence presented  did  not  demonstrate
the existence of probable material error or injustice; that the  application
was denied without a personal appearance;  and  that  the  application  will
only be reconsidered  upon  the  submission  of  newly  discovered  relevant
evidence not considered with this application.

_________________________________________________________________

The following members of the Board considered this application in  Executive
Session on 26 April 2001, under the provisions of AFI 36-2603:

                  Mr. David C. Van Gasbeck, Panel Chair
                  Mr. William Edwards, Member
                  Mr. Roger E. Willmeth, Member

The following documentary evidence was considered:

   Exhibit A.  DD Form 149, dated 11 Nov 99, w/atchs.
   Exhibit B.  Applicant's Master Personnel Records.
   Exhibit C.  Letter, ANG/DPFOC, dated 6 Nov 00, w/atch.
   Exhibit D.  Letter, SAF/MIBR, dated 1 Dec 00 and 25 Jan 01.
   Exhibit E.  Letters from applicant, dated 20 Dec 00, w/atchs,
               and 26 Feb 01, w/atch.




                                   DAVID C. VAN GASBECK
                                   Panel Chair